On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 11:32 AM, Burton, Ross <[email protected]> wrote: > On 25 March 2013 23:47, Andreas Müller <[email protected]> wrote: >> fixes: >> | ERROR: Multiple .bb files are due to be built which each provide >> virtual/gtk-update-icon-cache-native >> | >> (/home/Superandy/data/oe-core/sources/openembedded-core/meta/recipes-gnome/gtk+/gtk-update-icon-cache-native_3.4.4.bb >> | >> virtual:native:/home/Superandy/data/oe-core/sources/openembedded-core/meta/recipes-gnome/gtk+/gtk+_2.24.15.bb). >> | This usually means one provides something the other doesn't and should. > > NACK. > > The only way this can happen is if something is depending on > gtk+-native, as everything in oe-core (should) depends on > virtual/gtk-update-icon-cache: > > commit f07515096ea39e267cd3ebeea08cffbba1af07e0 > Author: Ross Burton <[email protected]> > Date: Mon Mar 4 12:52:45 2013 +0000 > > default-providers: add default virtual provider for gtk-update-icon-cache > > Use a virtual provider instead of a hard dependency so that if > gtk+-native is > required in some configuration, this provider can be changed and then > gtk+-native and gtk-update-icon-cache-native won't be both built > and conflict in > the sysroot. > > Presumably some application you've got is explicitly depending on > gtk+-native, probably for the icon cache handling. It should drop > that build dependency and use the class instead. > > Your fix "works" but will cause file overwrite warnings in sysroot > when you actually do want a gtk+-native, for example if you do want to > build a native gtk+ application or some reason. > > Ross Why do we need two providers which need pinning doing exactly the same?
Andreas _______________________________________________ Openembedded-core mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openembedded-core
